Does WSL need a new/better name?

[Andrew Brehm]

Since its first release Windows NT has supported environment subsystems, essentially individual operating systems based on the NT kernel and using the Windows environment subsystem for IO. Originally, they had boring technical names: Win32 (clrss), OS/2 (os2ss) and POSIX (psxss). Then Citrix developed WinFrame, an improved version of the Windows subsystem, and finally the POSIX subsystem was replaced by a new system with the cool name "Interix".

Interix is dead, unfortunately, and WSL (lxss), Windows Subsystem for Linux, has replaced it. (Windows Subsystem for Linux is really a Linux subsystem for Windows, of course.)

But "WSL" is a rather stupid, inelegant name. "Interix" was a cool name.

So what do you think? What should WSL be called?

 

[xandros9]

I mean it's a boring name but it's not a fancy consumer-facing product. It just needs to do a job and the name says exactly what it is. "Interix" tells me nothing about the system and sounds dated.

 

[Andrew Brehm]

Interix _is_ dated. But as a name it told us everything about the system as it followed the usual naming of Unix- and Unix-like systems (like Xenix, Sinix, Ultrix etc.).

Usually non-consumer-facing products have cooler names. Apple's "Rosetta" was a cool name and even IBM call their AIX-compatible subsystem for OS/400 "PASE" which is still cooler than "WSL".